Digital vs Analogue - help

I have heard many people comment that they don't like vector graphics. As I understand it, screen-printing results in essentially a digital format; either a square in the mesh is filled or it's not, creating a sawtooth edge as in digital work. Is that correct or am I mistaken?

Some people say they like the analogue look and create their posters in that way, but I am confused because it seems there is no way to tell if a poster image was made by analogue or digital, because of the reason given above about the screen mesh. Perhaps it is the working methods often taken in a vector program that makes the difference, for example using circle tools, or smooth curve tools. But if one scans a hand drawn picture, and then they trace it in a vector program, does it become indistinguishable from analogue methods using screen print?

I'm interested in creating images in different sizes, for posters, mugs, t-shits etc, so vector seems the way to go, but is there other ways to make these things (lithograph etc.) that looks more beautiful in your opinion, even if it's applicable to only one medium, such as posters. If so, please explain why.

You're asking the wrong question...it doesn't necessarily have to do with how something is finished or printed, but more with the general aesthetic of the work. "Digital" looking work is often clean and streamlined. "Analog" looking work has a more hand-made feel to it. While both these types of design can be created on (or using) a computer, and both styles can be screenprinted, it's more in the way they look.

The sawtoothing effect in screenprinting is caused by coarse mesh and shitty stencil. it can be overcome by using higher meshes and higher quality stencils, application, and exposure.

The choice of vector or raster graphics has more to do with the source art and the use.

Many of the artists on here start with an 'analogue' drawing, and then scan it or manipulate it through either PS or AI or similar programs. So it can still retain the look of hand done, but be digitalized to help with production.

So from what you wrote, you think the analogue vs digital is referring to general aesthetics of images often made in those environments, and not process, as the analogue image you gave could have been made completely in a digital realm, and the bottom image that you labeled digital could in fact have been made by only analogue means. It looks like it was made in a digital realm as it has an aesthetic that many associate with digital, but there is no way of telling if it was made one way or another by looking at it. Is that what you are communicating?

@Andymac

The sawtoothing effect in screenprinting is caused by coarse mesh and shitty stencil. it can be overcome by using higher meshes and higher quality stencils, application, and exposure.

So if sawtooth effect can be overcome then the square mesh seemingly must be able to be filled to different degrees, not just the square is filled or not, is that right? I have a strong feeling you are referring to what the naked eye can tell concerning sawtooth, but not concerning sawtooth in truth. Please clarify.

A while back I researched digital music vs analogue and there was a split between many people on if one could differentiate a difference. One study was done testing if a difference could be distinguished. The study indicated that one could not tell a difference, but then in the same article they did another study with longer exposure to the music, and the analogue music seemed to show more satisfaction in the listener than the digital. That is why I am interested in screen printing being sawtoothed even if the naked eye can not see it. Though I am not really concerned because I doubt many are going to be trancing out to my posters for long periods of time, it still would be nice to know that maybe if they were to trance out on it for awhile, that they might be more satisfied with one process over another. That study was dealing with hearing, not eye sight, and the study could have been crap, etc.... but it's something I wonder about.

@standard
I'm not sure what you are referring to; jpgs images over the internet vs real life or, analogue vs digital in real life. Please clarify. If you are referring to the later then that seems to be at odds with what Unitus has seemingly communicated.
@God-Awful

It seems like you're implying that you can 'cheat' by using vector and nobody will know, that's a weird attitude.

No, I'm not implying that. Im' trying to figure out if one can tell a difference from analogue art and digital(vector) in screen printing, and if you read everyones posts I think you will see that no one has clearly answered that for me yet. If sawtooth is unavoidable in screen printing then one can not tell a deference between a Digital and analogue image. If sawtooth is avoidable, then one can tell a difference unless one creates a sawtooth image in analogue. Not that it probably matters because it seems from peoples responses (though it's not totally clear to me) that at least consciously one can not tell a difference.

@ all
Can one tell a difference from lithograph or other printing methods from screen printing, and if so, in what ways? Do ones look more beautiful to you?

Anyone who knows the difference can spot the difference between a screenprinted and digitally printed image, furthermore I can tell the difference between an intaglio, litho, relief print and screenprint.. It's not hard to do at all. It's harder for me to find the time to explain the difference visually to you. There are plenty of books out there.

No, just as Andy said, a screenprint doesn't have to be sawtoothed at all, even under a microscope, if the emulsion bridges the mesh properly.